LOGIN
REGISTER
RSS
HOME
I am going on Monday, and I too have high expectations. I think the problem is that us true film afficianados know what to expect from a true visionary like Singh...I wonder what a person who is not familiar with his work thought of this film.
What a grand colossal mess Tarsem Singh has foisted upon us: the kind you stare at in amazed wonderment, disbelieving that such a thing could happen. Immortals’ beauty is undeniable -- rendered with the stunning prowess of a true artist – but sits atop an incoherent hash of pretense and bloodletting. It has all the makings of a camp classic, as its oversized art direction renders it compulsively watchable and its gobbling turkey of a script leaves you hard-pressed to articulate the simplest basics of what you’ve just seen.
Singh clearly draws his inspiration from Clash of the Titans, and his eager desire to conjure Greek mythology probably found some ready backers to the project. The fundaments of a grand notion appear here and there, meditating on man’s need for gods to worship and how divine conflicts spill over into the mortal realm. Harness that to a good story, and you’re cooking with gas. But Singh, having articulated the barest hints of an idea, was apparently set upon by a gang of drunken Australian sailors, and then staggered home to burble the rest of it into a tape recorder while trying not to pass out from the concussion. That’s how the film plays at least: pasted together like shredded office files in the mad hope that the director’s cinematic eye will magically transform it all.
No such luck. Twelve hours after the screening, I’m still hard-pressed to deliver any but the most basic ideas of the plot. It’s loosely based on the myth of Theseus (Henry Cavill), who battled the Minotaur and eventually ruled as king of Athens. Singh has taken considerable liberties with the tale, and that’s cool… it the results were something worth watching. Instead, it features the barest frames of a good vs. evil conflict crippled by hideous dialogue and nonsensical scene placement that pays derisive lip service to the notion of storytelling.
It goes a little something like this: it the beginning of time, the gods warred against the titans and banished them to the realm of Tartarus. The evil King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) seeks a magic bow that can free the Titans from their imprisonment and avenge himself on the gods for various undisclosed sins. Theseus stands in his way, as does a virginal oracle (Freida Pinto) haunted by visions of apocalypse. That’s all to be expected, of course, but Immortals insists on cluttering it up with unwieldy details… not because of some organic necessity, but seemingly on a whim. Supporting characters arrive, announce their motivations, and then hang around to be tortured or killed in some suitably grisly fashion. Theseus’s destiny is hinted at, but never brought to fruition, and Cavill’s passive screen presence makes him practically transparent. And the gods themselves make fretful appearances, intent on stopping Hyperion from reaching the bow but forbidden from interfering.
That last point bears further discussion. Getting the gods involved is a bad move from a narrative standpoint, since they can basically wave their hands and make anything they wish come to pass. Singh gets around it with the “we can’t get involved” milksop, then studiously ignores it whenever he needs a cool slow-motion fight sequence. Much is made of the gods’ “transgressions” when they step in, but the rule is applied haphazardly and constantly reiterates the point that Theseus has no real impetus of his own. Hyperion, the ostensible villain, at least possesses his own motives, leading us to wonder idly whether we might not be backing the wrong horse.
Of course, that presumes a level of intellectual discourse for a film that’s basically happy mashing up crayons on the floor. While Immortals strives for lofty ideas about fate and free will, it hasn’t the first clue how to deliver them. Most of the time, we’re left debating who can mumble their lines the loudest (Rourke wins), who can perform the nastiest evisceration (Rourke wins), who can appear to take the proceedings seriously while secretly spending his paycheck in his head (Rourke wins), and who can wear the snazziest hat (Rourke wins by a country mile).
Singh has the landscape down pat, with brilliant golds and reds punctuating gorgeous CGI cliffs. His raw visual sense is unparalleled, and as a series of unconnected shots, he knows how to deliver this material with flair. But anyone who owns a decent game console has seen the same thing, and in this day and age, sexy art direction holds little currency. The remainder of Immortals is a flat-out disaster, eagerly aping films like Clash and 300 without the barest hint of their not-exactly-Shakespearean narratives. Singh has the instincts of a genius, with the likes of The Cell and The Fall contributing one-of-a-kind visions to the annals of cinema. Immortals plays a like a gag reel of those earlier films; sadly, not even its creator is in on the joke.
I am going on Monday, and I too have high expectations. I think the problem is that us true film afficianados know what to expect from a true visionary like Singh...I wonder what a person who is not familiar with his work thought of this film.
I agree with the review and Wiseguy. The visuals were very good, but the script was weak at best and I got the feeling that the director just told the cast "action" without providing any real direction. There were bits and pieces of a good movie, but you really had to look for them. Unlike Rob, I thought Cavill held the screen well, while Roarke seemed to be channeling Brando in Apocolypse Now for his performance. I've never been a fan of Roarke, think he's been highly overrated for years, and for me his performance was another in a long list of forgettable roles. This movie showed why films like 300 catch lightning in a bottle. Immortals could have been one of those movies but there was way too much glitz and not enough meat in the story. 300 had heart and character to go along with the amazing visuals. Immortal didn't really have much heart and what it did have seemed pretty forced to me.
Saw this in 2D; wasn't wasting the extra $3 for 3D on a movie that I wasn't sure was going to be worth it. Glad I saved the $3.
Wow, y'all are harsh. Granted "Immortals" isn't "Citizen Kane" or even LOTR, but you're trouncing the story of a film that is not intended to be about the story. "Immortals", much like "The Cell" and "Sin City", isn't about trying to tell a profound story or develop deep character studies. It is about the visuals. You might as well complain that "Transformers" sucked because it had giant, transforming robots in it. If you went to see it expecting something else, you have only yourself to blame.
Apples and oranges dude, plus some of the films you named have a better told story IMO. As much as I love sword and sandals fantasy films I never thought they were about the visuals only. It doesn't need to be Citizen Kane by any means especially for me but a more engaging story would've gone a long way. 300 which a lot of folk like to compare it to has more meat and better acting which are my two complaints. Cavill is no Butler and Rourke wasn't even as good as Rodrigo was as Xerxes, both these guys came off flat to me
And still like I said I liked it and would see it again. 3D was awesome, the art and look are incredible and some of the action scenes lets me forgive its shortcomings. I'd give it around a B-
Singh's "The Cell" had to be one of the toughest films for a guy to tackle given it's complexities in both plot and visualization of the character's mindscapes, and yet he pulled it off brilliantly. Using mainstream actors who've never done anything better since! I think that's why I expected more from him and I won't judge the actors for thier part, the direction left no room for them to be more than set pieces. Singh really does have a way of making people look tiny and unimportant in the evironment.
I agree with Wise, I liked it enough to say I'd watch it again, I just wouldn't tell everyone I know that I saw it. I like to let films be films sometimes and not expect them to do anything but keep me interested, so they don't always need a fancy plot or razor sharp dialogue, they need to look good, sound good and show me a few things I've never seen.
Stop! Stop! Stop! Ok, all of you script hounds out there that have nothing to whine about other than how poor the script is stop talking. Anyone who watched the trailer for the movie instantly knew this was not going to be an oscar winner for any type of writing or acting. The movie was exactly as advertised. Which was highly stylized and over the top. If you were expecting anything more than that, you have really know nothing about movies. Stop overanalyzing the movie and look at it for what it is. I saw this movie last night. I knew exactly what I was getting into when I saw it, and because of that, I really enjoyed the movie. It was fun from beginning to end. The director had enough script to movie the movie from elaborate set piece to elaborate set piece. A blind monkey could have deduced that from the trailer. The movie was great for what it was. Stop complaining. I hate movie critics!!! They know absolutely nothing about what they profess to be experts in.
Stop! Stop! Stop! Ok, all of you script hounds out there that have nothing to whine about other than how poor the script is stop talking. Anyone who watched the trailer for the movie instantly knew this was not going to be an oscar winner for any type of writing or acting. The movie was exactly as advertised. Which was highly stylized and over the top. If you were expecting anything more than that, you have really know nothing about movies. Stop overanalyzing the movie and look at it for what it is. I saw this movie last night. I knew exactly what I was getting into when I saw it, and because of that, I really enjoyed the movie. It was fun from beginning to end. The director had enough script to movie the movie from elaborate set piece to elaborate set piece. A blind monkey could have deduced that from the trailer. The movie was great for what it was. Stop complaining. I hate movie critics!!! They know absolutely nothing about what they profess to be experts in.
I haven't seen this yet, as I've been lucky enough to get slammed @ work the last two days, but I'm gonna take the opinion of the Wise here. Him & I are big Tarsem fans and Wise I was very interested in what you had to say about it. Visually, how does it compare to the Fall? More scope or more detail?
Here's my problem, guys-is this SuckerPunch 2.0? I know I may be comparing apples and oranges here too, but I walked out of that film as I was left completely bored for nearly the first 40 minutes.
Tell me that this at least engages me in the story somehow. I want to enjoy this, but not at the complete expense of utter crap, y'know?
If it's plausible enough along the lines of an afternoon where you'd watch this and say, The Mummy Franchise, then I suppose I can be happy.
Lay your thoughts upon me, o Wise one.....
I love Singh's prior works and with this film he was tackling a genre that I love and with his style my hopes were pretty high, they were not met
The movie jumps around and seems to skimp a lot on details and characters. It's like Singh made the outline into a movie without going much deeper.
Cavill and Rourke were both mostly laughable. I swear Rourke seems like he just mailed it in, I've never thought much of him to be sure. And Cavill, I sure hope he does better as Superman.
And still I enjoyed the movie. Yeah mostly for the visuals, the Gods vs Titans scene at the end is great and there are more than a few other scenes that are pretty cool. Singh's style is so beautiful that it's like watching a moving painting and I can stare at a good fantasy painting for long periods of time so watching a film like this is still a treat for me and even though it didn't live up to my expectations I'd see it again.